SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (55811)7/23/2004 8:26:31 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793818
 
House Strips Courts of Gay Marriage Jurisdiction
SF Gate (AP) - House votes to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over gay marriage

Stung by a Senate setback on gay marriage, Republicans passed legislation in the House Thursday to prevent federal courts from ordering states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned elsewhere. Democrats called the bill an unconstitutional attack on gays and the federal judiciary, and said its passage was just a matter of election-year politics. A day before Congress closes down for six weeks, the 233-194, mainly party-line vote handed at least a symbolic victory to social conservatives who form a key Republican constituency. The bill has the strong backing of the Bush administration, but is not expected to make headway in the Senate, aides to Democrats and Republicans said.

This is perfectly constitutional, if futile. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the right to limit the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary in Article III. Given that the Senate surely doesn't have a fillibuster-proof majority on this, though, it doesn't much matter.

The bill would strip the Supreme Court and other federal courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on gay marriages under a provision of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says states are not compelled to recognize gay marriages that take place in other states.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said it could find no precedent for Congress passing a law to limit federal courts from ruling on the constitutionality of another law, although Democrats said opponents of civil rights legislation tried to do the same thing. The effect of the bill would be to single out gays and lesbians, barring them from going into federal court to seek to have their marriages recognized, several Democrats said. Civil rights groups said the bill is unconstitutional for that reason. "We face no less than a sign on the courthouse door: 'You may not defend your constitutional rights in this court. You may not seek equal protection here,"' said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., the House's lone declared lesbian. "Today, the 'you' is gay and lesbian citizens. But who would be next?"

It would be unconstitutional to bar gays and lesbians from suing. But this law doesn't do that. It's a very narrow law on one specific issue.

outsidethebeltway.com



To: LindyBill who wrote (55811)7/23/2004 8:53:25 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793818
 
Perfectly logical use of "occam's razor."

Not when the key challenger is a German and the pictured offender and those around him are wearing matching orange.

You know, Bill, there are people in the world to whom a bicycle race is more important geopolitics. Some of them even express that by showing up for the year's prime bicycle race and supporting their favorite, oblivious to narcissistic American interpretations of their behavior. Imagine that. <g>